Originally Posted by phillip (Post 6080158)

Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.

I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.

Edit - From that case:
"What happened? I conclude that the composer,12 in
seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was
working with various possibilities. As he tried this
possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as
being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective
listener; in other words, that this combination of
sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious
mind did not remember. Having arrived at this
pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was
made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
song became an enormous success. Did Harrison
deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not
believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear
that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He’s So
Fine with different words,13 and Harrison had access
to He’s So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement
of copyright, and is no less so even though
subconsciously accomplished."

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080180)

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080183)

Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.

I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080180)

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080188)

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080197)

Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.

There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080197)

As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080197)

Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080188)

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

Originally Posted by phillip (Post 6080210)

Its from 76. But the "ordinary person" test that Left Nut WRONGLY called my law class out on still exists according to the link I posted (from a quick google search)

Though the case is old, I belive the basic elements are still alive today, being:
(1) Access (i.e. ColdPlay has heard the song) and
(2) substantial similarity to an ordinary listener

Experts are heavily used to determine which parts may have been infringed and how close they are, etc. But the test the jury is to use is whether to an ordinary person they sound substantially similar.

Dane, I never disputed that access was a requirement.

citation is: 420 F.Supp. 177

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080215)

1 is far more important today than 2.

I mentioned this very early in this thread. Case law has now evolved to the point that Joe Satriani would have to prove that Coldplay heard his song before releasing their song.

Otherwise, it's case dismissed.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6080180)

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080204)

I think you're correct here, but a quick keycite would confirm it.

Originally Posted by phillip (Post 6080226)

KeyCite only has one case distinguishing it, and that case is from S.D.N.Y.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6080236)

But so is Brighttunes, which would be why the case distinguishing it is from the same district. The rest of the legal world doesn't give a rip.

Has this standard been adopted by the California courts? I don't believe it has been.

The Southern District of NY has absolutely no say in what standard to apply here. My recollection is that the standard in California is an intentional misappropriation standard.

In which case, the ordinary person standard is inapplicable.